Claimer: My Blog, My POV

Occasionally, I will mention my job, my public service activities, and other aspects of my life to offer my readers a better perspective on where I'm coming from. But to be clear:

"The views that I express represent my own opinions, based on my own education and experience, not the opinions of any other entity, party, or group to which I belong. I give these opinions in my individual capacity, as a private citizen, and as someone who gives a good gosh darn about his community, his country, and the truth."

Other Analytics

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Green Notes: Bikes, Solar, Good Sense Challenged

Buried in browser tabs! Time to clear the queue!

Colorado is seeing a weird outbreak of velophobia. Some folks have a Sibby-Ellis-tinged idea that promoting Denver as a bicycle city is part of the United Nations' sinister agenda to enslave us all. The tiny casino town of Black Hawk, Colorado has banned bicycles: a new Colorado law requires motorists to give bicycles at least three feet when passing, and Black Hawk reasons that complying with that law would be just too hard for the big tour buses bringing gamblers to town. Riding your bike through town now gets you a $68 fine (to make up for cyclists not spending as much on booze, I guess).

Green power is ugly. Or so goes the thinking, apparently, in Hanover Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Township supervisors there have imposed restrictions on solar panels: tucking panels away beside or behind the house is fine, but if you happen to have a south-facing abode and want to place your panel out front where it will do the most good, you need to get a conditional permit, which will take $800, two months, and all sorts of paperwork. Says a state township association official, "A lot of people have a problem with placing solar panels on the front of their homes for the simple reason...solar panels are distracting and take away from the value of [their] house.... Elected officials are hearing that and they're taking that into consideration." Once again, obsession with appearance trumps environmental sense and property rights.

The Council on Foreign Relations writes the emergence of China's economy and demand for oil will force the rest of the world to adopt renewable energy technologies must faster than previously predicted.

Tony, I'll humor you briefly on the off-chance you really don't get it.

"Green tech" is a "liberal thing" because liberals promote it. Liberals promote it because they see it as an alternative to the evil earth-destroying oil and coal energy industry that their liberal eco-religion says is bad.

"Green tech" doesn't do squat for national security, despite all the wishful thinking, propaganda and blather Cory spews about it. Why not? Because at best it can only account for a small percentage of our overall energy needs. It is unreliable, inefficient, costs more, and will do absolutely nothing to alleviate our need for petroleum products. Even if we magically came up with a clean nuclear fission energy source tomorrow (more liberal wishful thinking), we would still need huge amounts of oil to support all the other lubricant needs we have, in addition to the fact that you can't look around you in even a 10-degree arc without seeing countless things made of plastic--a necessary component of which is petroleum.

Meanwhile, you tree huggers insist we not drill for more oil on our own soil. In other words, you don't give a rat's rear end about "national security;" you just know that national security is something reasonable people care about, so you hope you can dupe people into drinking your environmentalist Koolaid with a "national security" label on the bottle.

I also need to clarify your distortion of subsidies. You are probably referring to the tax incentives often offered to oil and coal companies to aid in production; contrary to liberal dogma, the money the business keeps was theirs to begin with. Meanwhile, our government takes money from the taxpayer and directly gives it to "green tech" to build their unreliable and inefficient energy infrastructure...that STILL costs more to produce the same amount of energy than fossil fuels. Big, big difference.

Finally, conservatives are for business and free enterprise. A key principle of the free market is that businesses will rise up and thrive where their product or service is necessary or otherwise in demand. There is no real demand for solar or wind power; we already have cheaper, more efficient and more abundant energy sources (coil, oil, natural gas, etc) elsewhere. Wind and solar power is an artificially created market based on tree-hugging do-gooder's ideas of what we should be doing, versus what there is real demand for.

Another key principle of the free market is that market forces (supply and demand, the cost of doing business, the price the market will bear, etc.) best drive businesses, including the energy industry. Without lots of taxpayer money to throw directly at "green tech," these businesses would be laughed out of town on a rail. They nearly are--they can't naturally compete with other energy sources--even with a direct infusion of taxpayer money and higher energy costs.

So when you think about it, it's pretty simple why conservatives aren't drinking the environmentalist Koolaid. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really didn't get it, of course. :-)

hey Corey...long time no write. You know how much I love and respect you my brother, but I do want to pick a bone.

I appreciate your feelings on alcohol. I respect them. I understand them. I do feel at times though, (and I want to stress this has nothing to do with personal feelings) that your anti-alcohol leanings truly tint otherwise stellar reporting.

Take for instance your last line on the ban of bikes in Black Hawk(a law that as far as I can tell was done for the safety of riders, pedestrians and passengers)

"Riding your bike through town now gets you a $68 fine (to make up for cyclists not spending as much on booze, I guess)."

See right there with that last line I want to dismiss all you are saying...you run right from factual journalism to soap box editorials. But I know you and your passions and appreciate your enthusiasm for biking, nature, fairness, schooling, the list goes on and on. You are a good person. But this stick in your craw called alcohol is really really really tinging your reporting...in my opinion.

Safety of riders: no bicycle accidents or fatalities were reported prior to the ban. The safety of riders is well maintained by obeying the law on giving riders three-foot berth.

The booze comment here is synecdoche for the short-sightedness of the Black Hawk town leaders. They get dollar signs in their eyes over casino tourism (which derives a fair portion of revenue from alcohol sales). They ignore the revenue to be had from bike tourism (lodging, bike shops, huge meals as cyclists fuel up).

[Alas, my reporting will remain tinged. In a society where alcohol is celebrated in so many venues, where grown adults perpetuate the message that you can't have fun if alcoholic beverages aren't served, and in a town of 6500 people with 24 places to buy beer, someone's got to offer some counterprogramming. I've seen more ill than good come from alcohol. Folks coming to the blog will just have to understand I'm a teetotaler and that I will refer to alcohol with the same disdain GHW Bush reserved for broccoli. It's nothing personal; I just don't touch the stuff, don't want it around me... and don't want it shaping public policy.]

Tony, I see my response to your query "mysteriously" disappeared, but I'll repost it for you.

"Green tech" is a "liberal thing" because liberals promote it. Liberals promote it because they see it as an alternative to the evil earth-destroying oil and coal energy industry that their liberal eco-religion says is bad.

"Green tech" doesn't do squat for national security, despite all the wishful thinking, propaganda and blather Cory spews about it. Why not? Because at best it can only account for a small percentage of our overall energy needs. It is unreliable, inefficient, costs more, and will do absolutely nothing to alleviate our need for petroleum products. Even if we magically came up with a clean nuclear fission energy source tomorrow (more liberal wishful thinking), we would still need huge amounts of oil to support all the other lubricant needs we have, in addition to the fact that you can't look around you in even a 10-degree arc without seeing countless things made of plastic--a necessary component of which is petroleum.

Meanwhile, you tree huggers insist we not drill for more oil on our own soil. In other words, you don't give a rat's rear end about "national security;" you just know that national security is something reasonable people care about, so you hope you can dupe people into drinking your environmentalist Koolaid with a "national security" label on the bottle.

I also need to clarify your distortion of subsidies. You are probably referring to the tax incentives often offered to oil and coal companies to aid in production; contrary to liberal dogma, the money the business keeps was theirs to begin with. Meanwhile, our government takes money from the taxpayer and directly gives it to "green tech" to build their unreliable and inefficient energy infrastructure...that STILL costs more to produce the same amount of energy than fossil fuels. Big, big difference.

Finally, conservatives are for business and free enterprise. A key principle of the free market is that businesses will rise up and thrive where their product or service is necessary or otherwise in demand. There is no real demand for solar or wind power; we already have cheaper, more efficient and more abundant energy sources (coil, oil, natural gas, etc) elsewhere. Wind and solar power is an artificially created market based on tree-hugging do-gooder's ideas of what we should be doing, versus what there is real demand for.

Another key principle of the free market is that market forces (supply and demand, the cost of doing business, the price the market will bear, etc.) best drive businesses, including the energy industry. Without lots of taxpayer money to throw directly at "green tech," these businesses would be laughed out of town on a rail. They nearly are--they can't naturally compete with other energy sources--even with a direct infusion of taxpayer money and higher energy costs.

So when you think about it, it's pretty simple why conservatives aren't drinking the environmentalist Koolaid. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really didn't get it, of course. :-)

[That's strange: a couple of Bob Ellis's comments have disappeared. Not by my hand, guaranteeed. Here's the comment Bob tried to put up yesterday:]-------------------------------Tony, I see my response to your query "mysteriously" disappeared, but I'll repost it for you.

"Green tech" is a "liberal thing" because liberals promote it. Liberals promote it because they see it as an alternative to the evil earth-destroying oil and coal energy industry that their liberal eco-religion says is bad.

"Green tech" doesn't do squat for national security, despite all the wishful thinking, propaganda and blather Cory spews about it. Why not? Because at best it can only account for a small percentage of our overall energy needs. It is unreliable, inefficient, costs more, and will do absolutely nothing to alleviate our need for petroleum products. Even if we magically came up with a clean nuclear fission energy source tomorrow (more liberal wishful thinking), we would still need huge amounts of oil to support all the other lubricant needs we have, in addition to the fact that you can't look around you in even a 10-degree arc without seeing countless things made of plastic--a necessary component of which is petroleum.

Meanwhile, you tree huggers insist we not drill for more oil on our own soil. In other words, you don't give a rat's rear end about "national security;" you just know that national security is something reasonable people care about, so you hope you can dupe people into drinking your environmentalist Koolaid with a "national security" label on the bottle.

I also need to clarify your distortion of subsidies. You are probably referring to the tax incentives often offered to oil and coal companies to aid in production; contrary to liberal dogma, the money the business keeps was theirs to begin with. Meanwhile, our government takes money from the taxpayer and directly gives it to "green tech" to build their unreliable and inefficient energy infrastructure...that STILL costs more to produce the same amount of energy than fossil fuels. Big, big difference.

Finally, conservatives are for business and free enterprise. A key principle of the free market is that businesses will rise up and thrive where their product or service is necessary or otherwise in demand. There is no real demand for solar or wind power; we already have cheaper, more efficient and more abundant energy sources (coil, oil, natural gas, etc) elsewhere. Wind and solar power is an artificially created market based on tree-hugging do-gooder's ideas of what we should be doing, versus what there is real demand for.

Another key principle of the free market is that market forces (supply and demand, the cost of doing business, the price the market will bear, etc.) best drive businesses, including the energy industry. Without lots of taxpayer money to throw directly at "green tech," these businesses would be laughed out of town on a rail. They nearly are--they can't naturally compete with other energy sources--even with a direct infusion of taxpayer money and higher energy costs.

So when you think about it, it's pretty simple why conservatives aren't drinking the environmentalist Koolaid. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really didn't get it, of course. :-)

Posted by Bob Ellis to Madville Times at 8/28/2010 5:10 PM----------------------------------